On Friday afternoon, 24 July, the Holy Father celebrated Vespers with the faithful of Aosta, Italy, in the city's Cathedral. During his Homily, the Pope commented on a brief passage from the Letter to the Romans

We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

Condemned or are readers of his works cautioned when reading them? I understand he was a proponent of 'Process Theology' but I wasn't aware that it was condemned by the Church?

__________________

O Lord, I humbly beseech thee to guide me to that form of religion
which is most pleasing to thee for me to follow upon earth,
in order to fulfill thy will here, and obtain everlasting happiness,
in the name of Jesus Christ thy Son.

I hate to admit this, but my knowledge on this begins and ends with the wiki site.

I think for the Church to condemn him outright they would have to also condemn St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor, both of whom directly inspired the late Chardin's theories.

__________________

O Lord, I humbly beseech thee to guide me to that form of religion
which is most pleasing to thee for me to follow upon earth,
in order to fulfill thy will here, and obtain everlasting happiness,
in the name of Jesus Christ thy Son.

Father de Chardin's writings have never been condemned. What was said by Pope John Paul II was that they did not represent official Catholic dogma. Father de Chardin never wrote them to represent authoritative theology. Fr. de Chardin was a cosmologist. This places him in the field of metaphysics more than in theology. He used theology to shed light on contemporary cosmology. The authors of the Wikipedia article show a lack of understanding of Father de Chardin's writings.

Thus, he wrote that the world would be transformed into one cosmological body of Christ. He uses the word host in a different context than that which it is used in Eucharistic theology. He borrowed many words from theology to explain cosmology. The Holy Father is right in his use of Fr. de Chardin's writings. He is not using it in a sacramental sense, but in speaking of an eschatalogical reality where the world will become the body of Christ. The Holy Father is stating that one of the missions of a priest is to make this happen through his ministry to help people in their on-going conversion.

I think this is the relevant bit from the Wikipedia article (my emphasis):

"In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.

This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain church officials that would continue until long after Teilhard's death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum (reprimand) of the Holy Office denouncing his works. From the monitum:

"The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.".[2]

Teilhard's writings, though, continued to circulate — not publicly, as he and the Jesuits observed their commitments to obedience, but in mimeographs that were circulated only privately, within the Jesuits, among theologians and scholars for discussion, debate and criticism[citation needed].

As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually returning to favor in the church. For example, on June 10, 1981, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli wrote on the front page of the Vatican newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano:

"What our contemporaries will undoubtedly remember, beyond the difficulties of conception and deficiencies of expression in this audacious attempt to reach a synthesis, is the testimomy of the coherent life of a man possessed by Christ in the depths of his soul. He was concerned with honoring both faith and reason, and anticipated the response to John Paul II's appeal: 'Be not afraid, open, open wide to Christ the doors of the immense domains of culture, civilization, and progress.[3]

However, shortly thereafter the Holy See clarified that recent statements by members of the church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard's birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the church officials.[4] Thus the 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day.

Although some Catholic intellectuals defended Teilhard and his doctrine (including Henri de Lubac)[5], others condemned his teaching as a perversion of the Christian faith. These include Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Dietrich von Hildebrand.[6]"

I think this is the relevant bit from the Wikipedia article (my emphasis):

"In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.

This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain church officials that would continue until long after Teilhard's death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum (reprimand) of the Holy Office denouncing his works. From the monitum:

"The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.".[2]

Teilhard's writings, though, continued to circulate — not publicly, as he and the Jesuits observed their commitments to obedience, but in mimeographs that were circulated only privately, within the Jesuits, among theologians and scholars for discussion, debate and criticism[citation needed].

As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually returning to favor in the church. For example, on June 10, 1981, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli wrote on the front page of the Vatican newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano:

"What our contemporaries will undoubtedly remember, beyond the difficulties of conception and deficiencies of expression in this audacious attempt to reach a synthesis, is the testimomy of the coherent life of a man possessed by Christ in the depths of his soul. He was concerned with honoring both faith and reason, and anticipated the response to John Paul II's appeal: 'Be not afraid, open, open wide to Christ the doors of the immense domains of culture, civilization, and progress.[3]

However, shortly thereafter the Holy See clarified that recent statements by members of the church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard's birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the church officials.[4] Thus the 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day.

Although some Catholic intellectuals defended Teilhard and his doctrine (including Henri de Lubac)[5], others condemned his teaching as a perversion of the Christian faith. These include Jacques Maritain, Étienne Gilson and Dietrich von Hildebrand.[6]"

I don't think that orthodox theologians use Fr. de Chardin's writings as theological doctrinal statements. But they are frequently referred to for their metaphysical and scientific methodology which is often very useful when using reason to explain faith and faith to enlighten reason. The Holy Father, as a scholar himself and an admirer of Fr. de Chardin's methodology for doing philosophy would apply the same methodology to doing theology, especially when we're dealing with a pope who is not too fond of Aquinas methodology. Though he subscribes to Thomistic theology. There is a difference between methodology and the content of theology. One cannot deny the excellence in Fr. de Chardin's methodology, especially for one such as Pope Benedict XVI who is much more of a Franciscan and Augustinian, than a Thomist. His theology overflows with Bonaventure and Augustine.

While Aquinas was a great admirer of both Augustine and Bonaventure, he also disgreed with them on the starting point of theological hermaneutics. Aquinas subscribed to the notion that faith begins with consent of the will. Whereas Augustine and Bonaventure believed that faith began with an experience of the soul that the will could not deny. Hence, Pope Benedict's conviction that faith enlightens reason, instead of Aquinas' method where reason explains faith.

It's because traditionalist Catholics seem to hate evolutionary theory. I don't know why. They also don't like to accept that Pius XII said it is compatible with Christianity.

It's the only thing about traditional Catholicism that I don't agree with. Of course, this is just a generalization.

Even Aquinas implied evolutionary theory, though he did not use such words, because they did not exist in his time. Every pope since Pius XII has agreed that evolutionary theory and faith need not be in conflict as long as the hand of God in the mystery of creation is not denied and the centrality of man is recognized by the theory. We must also remember that there are many theories of evolution. Some are in conflict with faith and others are not. Just recently the Vatican hosted a congress on evolution and they excluded creationists and intelligent design people, because they do not recognize either group as being scholarly enough for Catholicism.

I have a difficult time understanding how Teilhard was not a heretic. The quote from the Pope is fairly innocuous, I think, and not much of a big deal, though. Leo XIII called Origen the greatest of the Eastern Fathers at one point. It didn't mean that he bought into some of his wackier ideas.

Anybody that wants to know more about the sicker aspects of Teilhardism should consider reading Dietrich von Hildebrand's Trojan Horse in the City of God (which has an entire appendix devoted to Teilhardism) or Wolfgang Smith's Teilhardism and the New Religion, which completely dismantles de Chardin's science and theology.

Anyone who reads Teilhard's own works, especially his later ones like The Heart of Matter, can see pretty clearly that he was messed up. His earlier stuff (The Divine Milieu, eg) isn't so bad, which is why Teilhard apologists like de Lubac tended to focus on it exclusively.

One other thing about reading Teilhard. He has a really nasty habit of making words up. Beware.

I have a difficult time understanding how Teilhard was not a heretic. The quote from the Pope is fairly innocuous, I think, and not much of a big deal, though. Leo XIII called Origen the greatest of the Eastern Fathers at one point. It didn't mean that he bought into some of his wackier ideas.

Anybody that wants to know more about the sicker aspects of Teilhardism should consider reading Dietrich von Hildebrand's Trojan Horse in the City of God (which has an entire appendix devoted to Teilhardism) or Wolfgang Smith's Teilhardism and the New Religion, which completely dismantles de Chardin's science and theology.

Anyone who reads Teilhard's own works, especially his later ones like The Heart of Matter, can see pretty clearly that he was messed up. His earlier stuff (The Divine Milieu, eg) isn't so bad, which is why Teilhard apologists like de Lubac tended to focus on it exclusively.

One other thing about reading Teilhard. He has a really nasty habit of making words up. Beware.

But the fact remains that some theological scholars like some of his work and Benedict XVI is one of them. Benedict XVI also has great admiration and respect for Father Kung. He made him the official leader of the philosophical ecumenical movement in his country about five weeks after he was elected pope.

Pope Benedict is a scholar and he does not see things the way we do. He picks and chooses from different scholars what he see as good and uses it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of what we have to accept when we have a pope who is a scholar and who wants to teach theology and philosophy to the Catholic world. Unlike his predecessor who was a pastor and wanted to focus on outreach. They are different styles and different interests. It is common knowledge that Pope Benedict works short days on Church affairs and spend long hours on speculative theology and other forms of academic research, when he's not praying or attending to diplomats and ecumenical affairs. He leaves the day to day affairs of the Church to the different Congregations and departments within the curia and to the local conferences of bishops. He has said that he strongly believes in subsidiarity. In other words, fix the problems at the lower levels and let me do academic theology and global issues that affect the Church.

That kind of personality is also good for the Church. That's my opinion. Maybe I'm biased, becasue I too like research.